Karnataka govt calls meeting with experts to discuss Influenza A subtype
Bengaluru (PTI): The Karnataka government on Sunday said a meeting has been called with the health department officials and experts on March 6, to deliberate on the preventive measures to be taken regarding the spread of Influenza A subtype 'H3N2'.
Health Minister K Sudhakar said the Centre's guidelines in this regard will be adhered to.
"On Saturday, the Union Health Ministry has communicated to us (state) to pay attention to it (H3N2). Our Health Commissioner and Principal Secretary have held discussions regarding this. A meeting has been called tomorrow regarding the precautionary measures to be taken," Sudhakar said.
Addressing reporters, he said, "as of now there are no such cases reported in Karnataka, but according to initial reports one of the symptoms is persistent cough. What measures to be taken when such cases come in, and treatment methods to be adopted, will be discussed in tomorrow's meeting along with experts, and the Centre's guidelines will be followed."
A persistent cough, sometimes accompanied by fever, running through India for the past two-three months is due to Influenza A subtype H3N2, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) experts have said.
The H3N2, which has been in wide circulation for the past two-three months, causes more hospitalisations than other subtypes, said ICMR scientists who keep a close watch on ailments caused by respiratory viruses through the Virus Research and Diagnostic Laboratories network.
They have also suggested a list of Dos and Don'ts for people to follow and protect themselves from contracting the virus.
The Indian Medical Association (IMA), on the other hand, has advised against indiscriminate use of antibiotics amid rising cases of cough, cold and nausea across the country.
Seasonal fever will last five to seven days, it noted.
The fever goes away at the end of three days, but the cough can persist for up to three weeks, the IMA's Standing Committee for Anti-Microbial Resistance said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC reserves verdict on ex-CM Yediyurappa's plea against revival of corruption case
New Delhi(PTI): The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a plea of senior BJP leader and former Karnataka chief minister B S Yediyurappa against an order reviving a corruption case against him.
The Karnataka High Court, on January 5, 2021, allowed a plea of complainant A Alam Pasha, who hails from Bengaluru, and revived his complaint.
Pasha alleged corruption and criminal conspiracy against Yediyurappa and former Industries minister Murugesh R Nirani and Shivaswamy KS, former managing director of Karnataka Udyog Mitra.
The high court ruled the absence of prior sanction for prosecution—leading to the quashing of an earlier complaint—did not bar the filing of a fresh complaint once the accused had demitted office.
It, however, did not allow criminal prosecution of V P Baligar, a retired IAS officer and former principal secretary of the state government, in the corruption case.
On April 4, a bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra concluded the hearings and framed several key legal questions for its adjudication including whether after a judicial magistrate has ordered probe under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would a prior sanction of the appropriate government authorities be still required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Section 156 (3) of the CrPC permits a judicial magistrate to order a police investigation into a complaint and it may include order for a preliminary inquiry or registration of an FIR.
Section 17A of the PC Act says, “No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval...”
The top court framed seven crucial legal questions, primarily focusing on the interplay between various provisions of the PC Act and the CrPC on the issue of prior sanction to prosecute a public servant and power of the judicial magistrate to entertain a private complaint and order probe and an FIR.
“What are the relevant considerations as contemplated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which the appropriate authority or government is expected to look into before the grant of approval for initiation of any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation by the police?” read the first question the bench framed.
Whether the considerations which weigh with the appropriate authority or government while granting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act are fundamentally so different from the one that a magistrate is ordinarily expected to apply while passing an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, read the second issue.
“In other words, whether the considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act are of such a nature that they are necessarily beyond the ambit or scope of consideration by a Magistrate while directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC,” the bench said.
The top court asked if it could be said that once a magistrate has applied his mind under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the requirement of a prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is meaningless, redundant and no longer necessary.
“Could it be said that a police officer, despite a direction under Section 156(3) by a Magistrate, would remain inhibited from conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation without prior approval as required by Section 17A,” it added.
Whether a magistrate could proceed with inquiry under Sections 200 (examination of private complainant) and 202 (postponement of a criminal case) of the CrPC without prior sanction, and whether such actions are limited only to the pre-cognizance stage, read another question.
The top court asked the counsel of the senior BJP leader to file the written submissions within two weeks, along with relevant case laws addressing not just the framed questions, but any additional issues that may arise.
Pasha had initially filed a complaint alleging Yediyurappa and others conspired to forge documents to revoke the high-level clearance committee’s approval for allotting 26 acre of industrial land to him at Devanahalli Industrial Area.
The complaint, which invoked provisions under the IPC and the PC Act, was initially investigated by the Lokayukta Police, but in 2013, the high court quashed the complaint for a lack of mandatory sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.
Subsequently, after the accused officials vacated their offices, Pasha filed a fresh complaint in 2014, arguing that sanction was no longer required in light of Supreme Court judgment in the A R Antulay case.
The special judge dismissed the second complaint in 2016, again citing lack of sanction.
Challenging this dismissal, Pasha approached high court which passed a partly favourable ruling.
_vb_67.jpeg)